tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26666124.post114936171701901758..comments2015-08-02T15:08:08.129-04:00Comments on Shrink Rap: Public Psychiatry and Free SpeechDinahnoreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26666124.post-1149426590675870682006-06-04T09:09:00.000-04:002006-06-04T09:09:00.000-04:00See related free speech issue in Canada (on John C...See related <A HREF="http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=5609" REL="nofollow">free speech</A> issue in Canada (on John C. "<I>I get no spam</I>" Dvorak's blog).Royhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16543746132388754693noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26666124.post-1149377343102789412006-06-03T19:29:00.000-04:002006-06-03T19:29:00.000-04:00Great link. Yes, that's exactly right--the case im...Great link. Yes, that's exactly right--the case implies that opinions should be expressed as a private citizen rather than as an employee. But the Ceballos decision also suggests that even then you are not absolutely protected, just not as at risk.<BR/><BR/>I'm not a lawyer & I suspected even attornies can't predict yet what the fallout will be. Perhaps there are readers out there more qualified to address this? If so, please feel free to comment.ClinkShrinkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13316134491751195651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26666124.post-1149365208619257162006-06-03T16:06:00.000-04:002006-06-03T16:06:00.000-04:00Damn. Who do you complain to when even the Suprem...Damn. Who do you complain to when even the Supreme Court makes a decision that seems against the First Amendment?<BR/><BR/>A related article suggested that, for public employees who are concerned about wrong-doing on the job, this ruling suggests that the only way to protect yourself from retaliation is to go to the newspapers as a public citizen, rather than to your boss or to some government-related "oversight" agency.<BR/><BR/>See also <A HREF="http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/6/2/11937/41321" REL="nofollow">Daily Kos</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com